Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rahman (Editors)
2000 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-813-9
Abstract
1. The Experiments
2. CFX-4.2 calculations
The CFX-4.2 calculations aimed at a review of the capability of the code using the
two fluid Euler/Euler approach applying the implemented models for the descrip-
Advances in Fluid Mechanics III, C.A. Brebbia & M. Rahman (Editors)
2000 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-813-9
a lift
~U is the velocity, p the density and r the volume fraction, a denotes the con-
tinuous liquid and (3 the disperse gas phase. For a solid sphere a coefficient for Q,
of 0.5 is calculated. Here for the weakly viscous flows C^ = 0.05 was applied, as-
suming, that the force is valid also for small deviations from the spherical shape of
the bubble.
Lahey et. al [7] (1993) proposed, to develop a turbulent dispersion force for the
twofluidmodel:
k is the turbulent kinetic energy. For the coefficient Cy%> = 0.1 was assumed.
Advances in Fluid Mechanics III, C.A. Brebbia & M. Rahman (Editors)
2000 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-813-9
d is the bubble diameter y^ the distance to the wall and n .is the normal vector
to the wall. The coefficients were fitted to the experimental results to C^ = -0.0064
and d= 0.016.
2.2 UsedCFX-
options
During the presented 0.040
calculations, the flow
for both phases was _ 0.030
modelled as turbulent.
The calculations were
performed in the geo- 0.020
metry of a three-
dimensional cylindri- 0.010 * *--;"$l-r|i"*W:
I * : ^lii*':" *
cal domain with a radi-
us of R= 0.025 m and a
length of Z = 3.Om cor- 0.000 L_u_
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
responding to the verti- R[m]
cal test section. The
whole grid with non Figure 5: Measured and calculated gas volume profiles
(VL = 0.4 m/s; VG = 0.01 m/s, see A in Fig. 4)
equally divided cell di-
mensions consisted of 1b
50000 cells with a tube :
cross section of 500 10 /"
cells. At the wall for
5
the liquid phase a non :
slip and for the gas
phase a free slip total "**.
boundary condition liift
-5 \
was chosen. The inlet Wall force \
boundary condition at -10
:
the lower end of the -15
cylinder corresponded 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
to a uniform gas flow R[m]
distribution over the Figure 6: Components of the non drag forces
Advances in Fluid Mechanics III, C.A. Brebbia & M. Rahman (Editors)
2000 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-813-9
cross section. A fluid velocity profile at the inlet according to a fully developed
single phase fluid flow was given. At the outlet on the top a pressure boundary con-
dition was set. The calculations were performed as transients with constant time
step and constant boundary conditions.
Considering all three components of non drag forces, the calculated void pro-
files are confirmed by the measurements (see Figure 5). A positive value of the
bubble forces (Figure 6) means the direction towards the wall. Caused by the fluid
velocity profile in a tube, the lift force is directed towards the wall. The wall force
acts away from the wall but only in the vicinity of the wall. The contribution of the
dispersion force is comparatively small. The description of a flow regime showing
a volume fraction maximum in the tube centre seems not to be possible consider-
ing only these bubble forces. Possible improvements of the models are discussed
later.
i _^l_ 1 1 ! 1 I 1 I | | 4
-ft -\ I -I tinr 1 UykSI 1 l_L==LJ
-iL. 4.
BD [mm] BD [mm]
L/D = 30 301 p L/D = 30
r-, '*\~ , -\ /\ ^ I 1 i
*~ oh J ^X -I "" o^r / r L =3
BD mm] BD [mm]
L/D = 12 L/D = 12
^h ,, i /\/vJ I -I
onr . _ >/ I^-L__
"" nh -1 0 2 4 G 8 BD 10[mm] 12 14 S 18ZJ20
BD mm]
L/D = 7 L/D = 7
f i /\ -- I I 1
uj- N^ -1 ~ OJlh _% / "^K^l 4
0 2 < S
B BD 10[mm] 12 14 16 18 20 BD [mm]
L/D = 2.5 L/D = 2.5
T H --sh
"h | I I I |
1 ^4-H- -I
" r LAL^ I ,1 I k L 4
BD [mm]
L/D = 1.5
-4-J..I N
BD [mm] BD [mm]
L/D = 0.6 L/D = 0.6
a) VL = 0.4 m/s; VG = 0.01 m/s (A) b) VL = 1.0 m/s; VG = 0.22 m/s (B)
Figure 12: Measured bubble diameter distributions at different distances
from the air injection (for the tests parameters see Figure 4)
Here the development of the bubble size distributions, gained from the wire mesh
sensor data were compared for the two different tests. The Test a), which is the ba-
sis for the Figures 7 to 12, shows a monodisperse bubble size distribution. In that
case the CFX-4.2 calculations applying the actual implemented two phase models
yields reasonable results. The measurements for Test b) indicate the occurrence of
larger bubbles, which were caused by coalescence. Coalescence is not considered
in the models. Tomiyama [9] (1998) has found, that bubbles having a diameter
larger than 5..6 mm are subjected to other non drag forces influenced by the bubble
deformation, which move the bubble towards the centre of the tube.
For the modelling of bubbly flow in a tube, the consideration of the non drag forces
is essential. To review the capability of the in the CFX-4.2 implemented two-phase
flow models, measured and calculated void fraction profiles over the tube cross
section were compared. The two phase models implemented in the code version
CFX-4.2 are capable, to describe void profiles with a near wall void maximum.
The analysis of the measurements showed, that bubbly flows having this type of
void profile are characterized by a monodisperse bubble size distribution. For the
description of flow regimes outside of this area the assumption of a single bubble
Advances in Fluid Mechanics III, C.A. Brebbia & M. Rahman (Editors)
2000 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISBN 1-85312-813-9
References
[1] Prasser, H.-M, Bottger, A., Zschau, J. A new electrode-mesh tomograph for
gas-liquid flows. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 9, pp. 111-129,
1998
[2] Krepper, E., Kriissenberg, A., Prasser, H.-M., Schaffrath, A. High Resolution
Void Fraction Measurements for the Validation of Flow Maps and CFD Co-
des. 2nd International Symposium on Two-Phase Flow Modelling and Expe-
n'mfH%mbfz, Pisa, Proceedings Vol. Ill, pp. 1371-1378, 1999
[3] Taitel, Y., Bornea, D. and Dukler, A.E. Modelling flow pattern transitions for
steady upward gas-liquid flow in vertical tubes. AIChE Journal 26 (3), pp.
345-354, 1980
[4] Ishii, M. Zuber, N. Drag coefficient and relative velocity in bubbly, droplet
or paniculate flows. A/C/zE JowrW 25(5), pp. 843-855, 1979
[5] Sato, Y., Sekoguchi, K. Liquid velocity distribution in two phase bubble flow.
W. 7. Mw/f#ojf Mow 2, pp. 79-95, 1979
[6] Zun, I. The transverse migration of bubbles influenced by walls in vertical
bubbly flow. W. J. AWffpWe F/ow 6, pp. 583-588, 1980
[7] Lahey Jr. R.T., Lopez de Bertodano, M., Jones, O.C. Phase distribution in
complex geometry conduits. Nuclear Engineering and Design 141, pp. 177-
210, 199f
[8] Antal, S.P., Lahey Jr., R.T., Flaherty, J.E. Analysis of phase distribution in
fully developed laminar bubbly two phase flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow
17(5), pp. 635-652, 1991
[9] Tomiyama, A. Struggle with computational bubble dynamics; 3rd Internatio-
nal Conference on Multiphase Flow, Lyon 1998